Seeing as you are new here, you might want to read the Terms of Service for the forum.

Thank you Sir. I thought my posts were on-topic however since they raised your concern, I will cease to post now on this topic.

Thank you for your service here.

Come now, Element, people who live in glass houses shouldn't be throwing stones.

So VisuddhiRaptor is Element? You know, if so, you caused a lot of people having a traumata, and for some reason Atma entered the internet realm just at the time a person called element was "kicked" out.

Some started to assume that my person might be Element, and since one told such, the hysteria never ended. Some weeks ago a friend of yours, if you are Element, approached Atma, short before he was put "on hold". Maybe you are happy to meet each other.

If it is the case, that you are Element, you did no good with possible friends to lead such foolish revolutions and being happy on lose of others. When Atma thinks on people like Retro, they are really touched and traumatized. It would be good to pardon and stop such ways. Change is always possible and the past is past, yet kamma might ripe anyway, but wise to stop new unwholesome. Just some hints, now as you have retreated from here.

Since everything is empty there is no alternative to dealing with emptiness exclusively. The one who tries to put aside emptiness to deal with alleged 'true things' cannot be called wise.

Walk the talk... its easy to speak next the refrigerator. Can Ground leave the comfortuzone and leave key and all signs of a householder inside when closing the door? How empty is refrigerator and clinging to it?

Or when a cobra face to face, or when really ill, no support as far as the horizont?

The Blessed One said, "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. [1] Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range."

The Blessed One said, "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. [1] Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range."

Sadhu! But Ground didn't answere my question and it was not about the color of the refrigerator or the taste of certain sausages, or ideas of homelessness intelectual but pactical prove to really know the talk.

Ground is very well-versed has learnd much, understands much and is wiser and quicker than the most, it would be really good if he would share his talents and give knowlege fist. People here are not even able to share a meal with a beggar or someone they might not get benefit from, not the speak about virtue. That is all far away from samma samadhi, vipassana and insight. Just a identification battle around the Gems, Buddist, Non-Buddist... either... having penetrated the All, after having penetrated the cosmos! (five sense) one is already beyound. Be serious, not even the first fetters. Unsakeable faith in the Gems and unbroken virtue pleasing for the wise.

Is ground generous enough that he would share what people could take without mistake?

The Blessed One said, "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. [1] Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range."

Sadhu! But Ground didn't answere my question and it was not about the color of the refrigerator or the taste of certain sausages, or ideas of homelessness intelectual but pactical prove to really know the talk.

you are a renunciate. I am not a renunciate. That is no news, right? Anyone may conclude whatever he/she likes from that difference.

I can use language here but the words I apply are empty of meaning from the outset I have no control about what meaning readers of my words synthesize in their minds. All I can do is to authentically select the words that I use here.

The Blessed One said, "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. [1] Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range."

Sadhu! But Ground didn't answere my question and it was not about the color of the refrigerator or the taste of certain sausages, or ideas of homelessness intelectual but pactical prove to really know the talk.

you are a renunciate. I am not a renunciate. That is no news, right? Anyone may conclude whatever he/she likes from that difference.

It was not the point of what someone else or who ever likes. It was about "knowing" the talk. That Ground like "emptiness" he told already, now speech is empty, in how far? Mean (mine)? And the sausage do not refer to to "renunciate or not, outwardly, but in regard of re-newn-tantz or cracked.

Quote from: Ground

... it would be really good if he would share his talents and give knowlege fist. ...Is ground generous enough that he would share what people could take without mistake?

I can use language here but the words I apply are empty of meaning from the outset I have no control about what meaning readers of my words synthesize in their minds. All I can do is to authentically select the words that I use here.

Let the part of receiving not a matter of yours, that does not make merits. Words aside of Dhamma, are always meant (mine-ed), even emptiness can have a meaning (mine-ing)

When you hear conventional speech then objects arise in your mind dependent on the sounds you hear. But these objects that arise in your mind do not exist in the sounds you hear. That is why it was said "Words are empty of meaning from the outset."What is valid for spoken words and their sounds is valid for written words and their forms as well.

I can use language here but the words I apply are empty of meaning from the outset I have no control about what meaning readers of my words synthesize in their minds. All I can do is to authentically select the words that I use here.

Let the part of receiving not a matter of yours, that does not make merits. Words aside of Dhamma, are always meant (mine-ed), even emptiness can have a meaning (mine-ing)

So what about letting go of meaning (mine-ing) in this regard?

Please use conventional words. 'mine-ing' is no conventional word. If you let go of meaning in communication nonsensical talk will result because you will select your words ignoring linguistic conventions.

It was not the point of what someone else or who ever likes. It was about "knowing" the talk.

When I talk about emptiness I know what I am talking about.

It's good to have an Arahat on side. So understand, that the Buddha didn't allow to show signs of resprect torward householders now not sure how to handle that proper with Arahats. What does Ground think? Did he mean householder outwardly in Vinaya, or inwardly?

Quote from: Ground

That Ground like "emptiness" he told already,

Nowhere was said that I like emptiness (of inherent existence). Emptiness is empty of like or dislike. Therefore if one perceives emptiness when phenomena appear there is absence of like or dislike.

Then for sure Atma misunderstood:

The emptiness befor virtue thing...

"before" isn't rightly expressed when there is only one object of interest remaining from all of buddhism, namely emptiness

When you hear conventional speech then objects arise in your mind dependent on the sounds you hear. But these objects that arise in your mind do not exist in the sounds you hear. That is why it was said "Words are empty of meaning from the outset."[/quote]That is in regard of the intellect-base. Now what in sphere of the eare-base (form -> cosmos) It's not possible to transcentend the all yet still there is cosmus.

What is valid for spoken words and their sounds is valid for written words and their forms as well.

Explain how such is with written words, the line of causes, from the reason of touch till birth and the line if emptiness is transcended.

... it would be really good if he would share his talents and give knowlege fist. ...Is ground generous enough that he would share what people could take without mistake?

I can use language here but the words I apply are empty of meaning from the outset I have no control about what meaning readers of my words synthesize in their minds. All I can do is to authentically select the words that I use here.

Let the part of receiving not a matter of yours, that does not make merits. Words aside of Dhamma, are always meant (mine-ed), even emptiness can have a meaning (mine-ing)

So what about letting go of meaning (mine-ing) in this regard?

Please use conventional words. 'mine-ing' is no conventional word. If you let go of meaning in communication nonsensical talk will result because you will select your words ignoring linguistic conventions.[/quote]

Meaning like Meinung, originates from "mine" or "mein" and is a wise linguistic expression of an act: mine-making, Meinmachen. It was just that one might understand the language he uses right and not convential under careless talking people, not considering the objected original common-use-mine-making (meaning) of a word. So in that context, which "convetion is nonsensicat? That of a allday unaware use, or that which points on the heard-wood-leading part? There is no language if not in the sphere of papanca.

So assumed improper attention can not be estimated by use of certain convention, and as Ground said: it's up to the reseiver to get the message, now blaming that the given is not receiveable: so where is here the understanding of emptiness, being touched and argue unwise, improper paied attention?

The react with empty will come now: simply to defent, or? And here we are back on "no where do i "like", yet remembering Eso-forum: Because there are not so serious Buddhists: meaning: its easier to devend.

“Bhikkhus, I will tell nine things originating from craving, listen attentively. Bhikkhus, what are the nine things originating from craving?On account of craving there is a search. On account of a search there is gain. On account of gain there is discrimination. On account of discrimination there is interest and greed. On account of interest and greed there is attachment. On account of attachment there is seizing. On account of seizing there is selfishness. On account of selfishness a protection is sought. Seeking protection stick and weapon is taken and with quarrels, disputes, exchange of words, slandering, telling lies, various demeritorious things arise. Bhikkhus, these nine things originate from craving.

Correct if wrong.

(Sorry for wrong quote appearing, seems that the team still has not fixed the bug with bbc-phasing)

Thats, aside of possible cynicism behind, a skillful deed. It is more of fruit to venerate something worthy to venerate, or say: bowing down before a wothy one is of more fruit than to make a live time merits (torward wordlingsworld). Mudita if it was not the opposite. Either cased by intention or failing to discriminate the object rightly.

Really? Would a "renunciate" be spending time posting stuff to online forums all day long?

How would a renunciate recognize himself to be a renunciate if not by exposing renunciation?

In the moment one leaves solitude, one does not renunce. But the withdraw from renunciate does not mean that one is not either complete or on the path to it. At least, even if one is dwelling (called) heedless, having already right view, one counts as being part, while an all-time renunciate, even permanent heedfull dwelling, yet not right view gained, is called an outsider.

That should be considered in a sphere where people sell meditatiin rather to hold gain of right view as the foremost.

Two things are the task of one who has gone forth: either talk on Dhamma or dwelling in noble silence (2. Jahna). This two things are not abounded by even Arahats.

That is the meaning of: who ever sees the Dhamma sees the Tathagata, who ever sees the Tathagata, sees the Dhamma.

So why going out and not seeking the light in thing appear and use them proper? Why not recoice on Buddhanature if recognize-able meeting such?

That is the benefit of mudita and the blessing if people share merits, for those abe to take. Yet, nothing lost by giving them, even if not taken. For what can be lost in sharing merits?

It was not the point of what someone else or who ever likes. It was about "knowing" the talk.

When I talk about emptiness I know what I am talking about.

It's good to have an Arahat on side. So understand, that the Buddha didn't allow to show signs of resprect torward householders now not sure how to handle that proper with Arahats. What does Ground think? Did he mean householder outwardly in Vinaya, or inwardly?

I think that this is a typical case of a view hold to be true constructing something on top of what was actually said.

It was not the point of what someone else or who ever likes. It was about "knowing" the talk.

When I talk about emptiness I know what I am talking about.

It's good to have an Arahat on side. So understand, that the Buddha didn't allow to show signs of resprect torward householders now not sure how to handle that proper with Arahats. What does Ground think? Did he mean householder outwardly in Vinaya, or inwardly?

I think that this is a typical case of a view hold to be true constructing something on top of what was actually said.

Nowhere was said that I like emptiness (of inherent existence). Emptiness is empty of like or dislike. Therefore if one perceives emptiness when phenomena appear there is absence of like or dislike.

Then for sure Atma misunderstood:

yes.

Correct if wrong.

'right' or 'wrong' depends on the view. Since we obviously do not share the same view and you believe your objects of mind to be truly existing we will never apply the same words in given contexts.

So Ground said: views depend on 'right' and 'wrong' and then, we will never "agree" on a meaning in a certain context. ("Meaning" here, in a sense of right and wrong, in a sense of right view, in a sense leading to liberation)

Correct me if Atma is wrong: does Ground seriously believe that non-action, not taking a view, is what the Buddha taught, is what leads actionless to liberation?

If so, why still paying the bill for the maintaining of a refrigerator? How could it happen that a layperson attaining Arahat-fruit lives such a long time, not having left home? Special merits from the past? A king, with wise people around, seeing the benefit for paying the bill and serve him his daily meal for benefiting the world and working on a field of merits?

That would be great, now still, to be honest, some doubt that it might be so.

So Ground said: views depend on 'right' and 'wrong' and then, we will never "agree" on a meaning in a certain context. ("Meaning" here, in a sense of right and wrong, in a sense of right view, in a sense leading to liberation)